The compassion of socialism.

[InsaneApache]

Utterly disgusted with the policy of withdrawing treatment to cancer patients. Why? Well because they had the timerity to purchase a life saving drug and so had NHS support terminated.

All this to satisfy a political ideology. Outrageous. Another example of socialsm and fascism being two cheeks of the same arse.

A mother of three has died from cancer after her family was forced to pay £20,000 for treatment she was denied by the National Health Service because she had bought a drug privately.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4882645.ece

[Fragony]

Once again it becomes obvious that socialism isn't compassion it's institutionalising all that's good about human nature. Love humanity hate the people.

[Strike For The South]

Once again it becomes obvious that socialism isn't compassion it's institutionalising all that's good about human nature. Love humanity hate the people.

Charity should come for other people not forced from the government

[Rhyfelwyr]

But when it doesn't....

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm not entirely sure where the socialism comes in. Labour doggerel, perhaps, but when was the Labour party last socialist?

Surely socialism would have sucked you dry by taxation in order to provide whatever drugs were required, on demand, for as long and expensively as possible. Regardless of how much personal wealth the recipient had stashed away. Your story only shows a government pretending to supply universal healthcare, but actually penny-pinching in the finest tradition.

I am however, uplifted by the intimation that the market has proven so much more compassionate in every way.

[Strike For The South]

But when it doesn't....

Not my problem. People generally hate people these days yet look to the government for help. Its funny to me.

[rory_20_uk]

We all die. Some die as they haven't got clean water, others as they didn't get a tetanus jab, or malaria tablets. These interventions cost pence.

I personally think that the NHS should give the care it gives regardless of extras you might have decided to get; I don't think that the NHS should give out all new drugs unless they have been passed by NICE as at least then there is some appraisal based on value for money.

[Viking]

Utterly disgusted with the policy of withdrawing treatment to cancer patients. Why? Well because they had the timerity to purchase a life saving drug and so had NHS support terminated.

All this to satisfy a political ideology. Outrageous. Another example of socialsm and fascism being two cheeks of the same arse.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4882645.ece

In Capitalististan, the government would gladly pay their inhabitant's health care? My, we are confused.

[InsaneApache]

I'm not entirely sure where the socialism comes in. Labour doggerel, perhaps, but when was the Labour party last socialist?

Surely socialism would have sucked you dry by taxation in order to provide whatever drugs were required, on demand, for as long and expensively as possible. Regardless of how much personal wealth the recipient had stashed away. Your story only shows a government pretending to supply universal healthcare, but actually penny-pinching in the finest tradition.

I am however, uplifted by the intimation that the market has proven so much more compassionate in every way.

The socialism comes in the form of state healthcare free at the point of delivery. IE the NHS, set up after the Beveridge report. I'm aware that the treasury is not a bottomless pit and that not everything can be afforded.

My point is that the terminally ill patients are being punished for 'topping up' their healthcare via private means. To withdraw all NHS treatment because a person dying of cancer decides that they might like to live a bit longer is outrageous. After all, this is done in the name of avoiding a two tier healthcare system, (when was the last time a government minister went NHS?) which is the credo of the political left.

We all know that our Great Leader is a wassock. Now he's a murdering wassock at the alter of equality. Nasty.

In Capitalististan, the government would gladly pay their inhabitant's health care? My, we are confused

I am after that post. Did you read the article?

[Viking]

I am after that post. Did you read the article?

No, I thought that your quote would cover the basics.

Socialism sounds more like denying people to pay more, rather than making people who pay more, pay even more. In Capitalististan, the government would pay nought in support. You complain not about socialism in itself, but the way socialism works in the UK with regards to NHS, no?

[InsaneApache]

The government has decreed that anyone who uses their own money for drugs not available on the NHS will have all NHS support withdrawn. This is done in the name of equality.

From the article...

In an attempt to give Simmons more time, her family paid privately for a drug called Avastin, which was not available on the NHS. They believe it prolonged her life.

However, under government rules their NHS treatment was then withdrawn. As well as the cost of Avastin, the family had to pay about £20,000 for routine drugs, scans and consultant appointments that would otherwise have been available on the NHS.

To punish someone who's dying for a political dogma is criminal

[Redleg]

Wait for the Solent Green before we claim socialism is compassionate.

Oh wait socialism is not about compassion at all, regardless of the attempts to claim that it is.

[Kadagar_AV]

wait...

This is one case, in one country, and it is used to deem out socialism as a whole?

Interesting logic. I am saying "interesting logic" because this forum has strict rules about language. However, if you would so choose, you can replace the "interesting" with a stronger word of your choice. Like "Fragd up logic", or *gasp* even worse.

[Strike For The South]

wait...

This is one case, in one country, and it is used to deem out socialism as a whole?

Interesting logic. I am saying "interesting logic" because this forum has strict rules about language. However, if you would so choose, you can replace the "interesting" with a stronger word of your choice. Like "Fragd up logic", or *gasp* even worse.

Socialism is merely a means to control the populace through bread and circuses. It has nothing to do with compassion

[CountArach]

From a Socialist - this is utterly deplorable. Everyone has the right to the same quality of healthcare without question.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And for all the people who can't afford healthcare in capitalist USA? Well I suppose they deserve it for not working hard, right? Neither do their children of course, for being born into such a lazy family.

[Ice]

Charity should come for other people not forced from the government

You seem to have developed that libertarian streak I had during my first couple years of college.

[Redleg]

wait...

This is one case, in one country, and it is used to deem out socialism as a whole?

Interesting logic. I am saying "interesting logic" because this forum has strict rules about language. However, if you would so choose, you can replace the "interesting" with a stronger word of your choice. Like "Fragd up logic", or *gasp* even worse.

Like I said before socialism is not about compassion at all, do you care to prove that socialism is compassionate. How about I site several instances where socialism has not been compassionate at all?

In fact look at the definition for socialism in Wikipedia

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

Now one might argue that socialism is more compassionate the Capitalism, Communism (as practiced in countries claiming to be communist) and even other political forms, but in itself Socialism is not about compassion.

Even the egalitarian society that is the goal of socialism does not promise compassion only something else. from the same source of wikipedia

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals, and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed above, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference

Compassion again requires something else besides socialism

[CountArach]

I'm not entirely sure where the socialism comes in. Labour doggerel, perhaps, but when was the Labour party last socialist?

GFT.

[Strike For The South]

You seem to have developed that libertarian streak I had during my first couple years of college.

I've always felt this way.

[Koga No Goshi]

Utterly disgusted with the policy of withdrawing treatment to cancer patients. Why? Well because they had the timerity to purchase a life saving drug and so had NHS support terminated.

All this to satisfy a political ideology. Outrageous. Another example of socialsm and fascism being two cheeks of the same arse.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4882645.ece

This sounds like a crappy situation, but you honestly believe that privately paid insurance models are any better? I can tell you a lot of stories to the contrary. People winding up having to pay huge sums even when insured and/or losing a house over medical problems is pretty common in the U.S.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Wikipedia does not know all, Redleg.

One definition of socialism is indeed the economic one, as quoted above. But the idea that everyone should be helped by society at large is also socialist in conception.

And nobody should be forced to pay for treatment that is ordinaraly subsidised, due to paying for extra treatment, its ridiculous.

Got to rush, be back later with more solid opinion.

[Kadagar_AV]

Is socialism perfect? NO!

is capitalism more caring of their citizens? Hardly.

case closed.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is socialism perfect? NO!

is capitalism more caring of their citizens? Hardly.

case closed.

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

[CountArach]

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

That isn't more caring though. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing, you must admit it is less caring.

[Strike For The South]

That isn't more caring though. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing, you must admit it is less caring.

Its not about caring It's about government control of private citizens.

[Koga No Goshi]

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility only ever applies if you're poor. Period.

[Kadagar_AV]

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility... for getting cancer? For losing your arm when hit by a car? Or what?

I am 100% in favour of personal responsibility... If some fat who weights 160kg has heart problems he should pay it himself, or die while eating more hamburgers.

If someone overdoses from heroine, let the die.

However, if someone is not at fault for whatever happens to them, the state SHOULD have an obligation to take care of him/her.

No?

[Koga No Goshi]

Personal responsibility... for getting cancer? For losing your arm when hit by a car? Or what?

I am 100% in favour of personal responsibility... If some fat who weights 160kg has heart problems he should pay it himself, or die while eating more hamburgers.

If someone overdoses from heroine, let the die.

However, if someone is not at fault for whatever happens to them, the state SHOULD have an obligation to take care of him/her.

No?

Personal responsibility in questions of medical care always seems to translate into "whatever your condition, it's up to you to pay for it." I would only agree in cases like plastic or cosmetic surgery. Other than that telling a poor couple to take full personal responsibility for their son being born with a defective heart valve is not very moral or enlightened.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That isn't more caring though. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing, you must admit it is less caring.

I'd say it is more caring.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnS...ves_to_charity
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ..._Than_Liberals